1981 wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking. The movies in 1981 that were bad are STILL bad. Difference is audiences could discern the difference between crap and quality. And for the most part the better films rose to the top. 40+ years later the bar has been lowered so far to the point, Hollywood doesn't even try anymore. It's not nostalgia, it's an objective 1 to 1 comparison of the overall quality of films that used to be released.
@@thetimewaveyou know that these two have the ability to be wrong about something, right? Not everything they dislike was complete shit, and I’m sure some of your favorite movies actually fall into that category.
These Dogs of the Year episodes were always the best. Gene and Roger making each other laugh in agreement of how terrible something is shows their humanity and is quite touching.
Thank you so much, Eric. More than just a tv show, each episode is a masterclass in film review for younger generations that won't be lucky to grow with Gene and Roger. I miss them horribly, but thanks to you, they are back. More, please! 😊😊😊
Roger Ebert's review essays are even more of a "masterclass" for film review. His entire history of reviews are published in several books. They are excellent.
Some of Siskel and Ebert’s programs would actually make for good curriculum for classes relating to media as literature or film criticism or film history.
Under the Rainbow screened for exhibitors on the same morning as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Rainbow was supposed to be the big hit, while Raiders didn't quite have any buzz just yet. I skipped Rainbow, which was well-attended by execs, and saw Raiders with the smaller group. Those of us in Raiders knew it was going to be a huge hit. I spoke to Rainbow attendees, however, who hated the film and knew it would be a box office dud. Needless to say, we booked Raiders which played well all summer long.
Neat story but I sorta doubt that Raiders lacked "buzz" considering that Spielberg already helmed Jaws and Close Encounters. In fact, it opened at #1 with pretty healthy earnings.
@@WheresPoochie Were you there at the screenings? Did you work in the industry? Have you studied the data? I appreciate that it might not seem so in retrospect, but this information is accurate. In fact, Raiders' opening was not, actually, a hot opening. Sure, it grossed about $8 million its first week. Its main competition was Mel Brooks' History of the World Part One, which, interestingly, had much higher per capita attendance than Raiders, grossing nearly $5 million on fewer than HALF the screens (under 500) Raiders was on (more than a thousand). One week later, Cannonball Run opened in about 500 more screens than Raiders and grossed more than $12 million while Superman II grossed another $14 million at the same time. A week later, still, Bill Murray's R-rated comedy Stripes and James Bonds' For Your Eyes Only would both open to grosses almost the equal Raiders' opening. (The flop of summer '81 was Disney's PG-rated Dragonslayer.) Raiders did not have a huge opening market campaign. In fact, Disney spent more on Dragonslayer. Word of mouth was what quickly brought people out, often for repeat viewings. The magic of Raiders was that it simply played all summer. Under the Rainbow, however, was genuinely thought to be the hot picture for the summer... until viewings. Chevy Chase was hot property (and was still two more summers away from his first Vacation hit.) And Carrie Fisher had just come off of her second Star Wars film. But word had gotten so bad by its July release that it barely appeared on 400 screens and opened to about $2 million, one of the lowest of the summer. It was a huge misfire in an industry that often misfires. Again, I appreciate that Raiders just seems like it was this giant massive juggernaut from the beginning, but it just wasn't.
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” was a lot of fun to watch, and both Spielberg and Lucas clearly enjoyed making the film. But, when producers have little to no faith in their own film, that is a bad sign.
@@WheresPoochie He did, but more recently he'd just spit the bit on 1941, the biggest budget he'd gotten to work with to date. So it's not like Spielberg could do no wrong. Harrison Ford had some buzz by then, but wasn't considered an A list star who could carry a blockbuster. It was uncertain at the time what kind of appetite audiences had for pulpy treasure hunter epics that intersect with Nazi occultism. I have no insider knowledge of the movies of that time, but I could see how not everyone expected a smash hit.
@@WheresPoochie I think, too, that Michael is pointing out that he was seeing it with other exhibitors long before the studio publicity machine had cranked up, before critics had the chance to review it, etc. I remember when Raiders came out, and reviewers were talking it up, but I had barely even heard of it before it hit theaters. E.T. was the same way, in fact. Yes, it was marketed as being by the director of "Jaws" but in 1981 the average person didn't pay attention to directors' names the way they do now. This was before not only the internet and social media, but also before mainstream movie magazines like Movieline Magazine and Premiere, or entertainment magazines like Entertainment Weekly, and around the same time that Entertainment Tonight was on the air. The reason Raiders hit big off the bat was because it was unanimously talked up by critics in its opening weekend and because people saw it, walked out, told all of their friends that it's a perfect movie, and then walked back into the theater to see it again.
Indeed it really will. One of the few huge all star cast movies that actually worked. Everyone from Roger Moore to Terry Bradshaw all had a ball and contributed greatly to the fun nature it showed, they weren't faking a bit of it. That's what that genre of film lacks a lot of the time. The actors in a random all star big cast movie are usually miserable, there are way too many characters, and the plot's a mess. Cannonball manages to juggle the characters well and doesn't lose track of the main plot goal which is impressive. It'll always be a fun ride. Such a shame part 2 got lost sadly.
The world would be a better place if we had more films like The Cannonball Run. I put it on all the time just to be in a happy mood. I miss so many of the actors in that film.
Thank you, Eric. These episodes of the great Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert are a fantastic trip down memory lane. I used to love watching them when they were on PBS before they moved to the ABC network. I still watched them on ABC, but these earlier episodes were even better with no commercials. The quality of these full episodes is terrific. I love watching these and thank you again for posting them. I really miss both Gene and Roger. They were a big part of my life growing up and as I got older.
Technically, they did not move to ABC. In 1982, after a dispute with WTTW-TV (which produced the show for PBS), they moved to Tribune Entertainment, where they created "At The Movies" (and their thumb-rating system). In 1986, they moved to Buena Vista Television (Disney, if you will) where they created a third, self-titled program, which by far was the longest running they've ever helmed. Both shows were syndicated affairs, so they appeared not only on ABC stations, but also stations affiliated with CBS, NBC, Fox, the WB and UPN (the last two of these networks launched in 1995) along with a smattering of local independents looking to spice up their programming lineups. In some areas, the same station carried both programs upon their respective debuts. As a side note, after Disney bought ABC in 1996, Siskel & Ebert began taping their show out of ABC O&O WLS-TV.
@@jessecoffey4737 You are correct about their moving from PBS to commercial syndication. PBS actually wanted to move them, but they did it on better terms. In NYC, At the Movies aired on WPIX TV and when they went to Disney in 1986, it aired on various stations during its run. By the way, from what I know, they taped in the CBS studio until 2001, then moved over to the ABC studio. Read this in Richard Roeper's book.
@Trzn Correct, cause when they started working for Disney, they did the show at CBS O&O WBBM-TV, and probley got space their because Siskel was once a contributor to WBBM-TV. When Disney bought out ABC then the show was moved crosstown to WLS-TV ABC7. Siskel must have pulled a few strings along the way to keep the spats with Roger Ebert going.
I like how in this one, they were both in agreement 100% of the way through, to the point where they started complimenting each others' points. Shows that bad movies can really bring people together.
I mean in general, they always agreed on what’s really good and what’s really bad. It was the stuff in the middle that they had the most professional disagreements on.
@@thekingofmovies193 It also takes place over the same night, so why would it be that different? Halloween II is fine and they got the slasher genre completely and totally wrong (women in peril being a lazy take especially), but it’s fun to watch them miss the mark.
When the Johnny Depp version of "Lone Ranger" bombed,I immediately remembered the 1981 version,and how it got bad publicity before it was even released. At the time,Clayton Moore,who played the Ranger on TV during the 50's,was still making public appearances dressed as the character,and these were very popular. However,the people behind the not-yet-released '81 movie took him to court for doing this,saying they owned the character now. A compromise was eventually reached....Moore would trade in his Ranger mask for a visor-like pair of sunglasses...but public opinion turned against the studio,seeing them as a faceless greedy company who sought to prevent an aging actor from making his fans happy.
John Smith yup. Played by a stupid idiot by the name of Klinton Spilsbury. He had most of his dialogue done by James Keach because he couldn’t memorize simple little lines. He was also drunk and combative during the filming. He easily won(hands down) for worst actor at the Golden Raspberry Award. Well earned and well deserved.
I saw the '81 Ranger at an industry screening a couple months before its release. Exec types frequently appeared unimpressed at screenings in those days; no one wanted to appear too enthusiastic in case the film was a box office dud! But the execs HATED the '81 Ranger. The film was terrible, the studio wanted a huge guarantee from exhibitors, and nobody could see any mass appeal for a western in 1981. Exhibitors ended up staying away from the film as much as audiences. It ended up being unpleasant for everyone. Did Hollywood learn anything? Ask Johnny Depp.
the thing is, the film gets a lot right, but the main actor was gay, as they later found out and dubbed his voice with James Keach. The film does have a pacing problem,
That 81 Lone Ranger also bombed at the box office. An idiot by the name of Klinton Spillsbury was embarrassing himself trying to play the mask avenger. James Keach came on and did most of his dialogue. He couldn’t even memorize simple little lines. Spillsbury won the RAZZIE award for worst worst actor. A well deserved win. His career went nowhere soon afterwards.
I like how they discussed the role of the ego in Hollywood (of stars and directors) and the manipulation of those egos by other elements (producers, agents) to order to cash in.
That scene from “The Legend Of the Lone Ranger” where they say “Try this” and “The Silver Bullet” laughingly made me think they were talking about Coors Light. Ha ha ha!!!
My dad took me to see this film. I never forgave him for it. The trailer for Raiders of the Lost Ark was on before the movie, and it was better than the whole movie.
I saw "Hardly Working" in the theater and I was blown away by how bad it was. Jerry, of course, was in the midst of an awful Percocet addiction in his private life but even that couldn't explain the ineptitude that was on screen. In one scene while playing a waiter, his ring gets caught in the shawl of a sitting diner and he immediately devolves into a lisping moron saying over and over again...more than a dozen times... "My ring is caught in your meschhhhh"...I mean, who looked at that in the editing room and thought anything other than "This is AWFUL!!!!!!"????
@@sha11235 Today, a film with bad mojo can avoid the costs and risks of a theatrical release and simply go straight to home video. Back in those days, there were not huge opportunities for a film after it had been in the theatres beyond TV and re-releases. Hardly Working was a total embarrassment for the studio and Lewis, and I was embarrassed to sell tickets (well, a few) for it. Aside from Jerry's personal problems, it was a time of change in entertainment. Lewis' style of entertainment was on its way out, already on life-support with its legends dying out and making last gasp appearances on such shows as The Love Boat. Jerry's aging schtick in Hardly Working was barely any different than what the likes of Sid Caesar were doing on The Love Boat. The movie just made it look so much worse.
I watched a few of these now(Thanks so much for uploading them!).And each time it starts for the first 3 seconds I think I have the wrong video.And that it's the beginning of the Batman Animated Series from the early 90's..
My favorite moment in Halloween 2 is when dr, loomis is ranting about having killed michael at the end of the first movie after shooting him and he says "I shot him, I shot him six times, I shot him in the eyes,in the heart and the head". Actually you shot him...nine times...with a six shot revolver...that you didn't relaod.
I could never figure out why he gave his gun to Laurie who by some miracle of luck shot him in the eyes,,,,,,the book described him as being reborn each time he died.....
15:50 Actually, the cars were a big part of what was wrong with the film. One of them crashed a paralyzed a young stunt woman, Heidi von Beltz, for the rest of her life. A big lawsuit resulted. A horrible tragedy.
Can’t replace these two guys. So sad 😞 they’re no longer with us. RIP to Gene Siskel deceased 2/20/1999 at age 53 and Roger Ebert deceased 4/4/2013/ at age 70. They’re probably up in heaven reviewing movies together as we speak.
Clearly you dont know the real life story. They hated each other and wished cancer on each other, and then they both died of cancer. They are on seperate clouds.
@@RageMojoWay off. They had a very professional relationship. They were different people but were friendly in the end. Their competitiveness drove them in the early days, but they warmed to each other over time. You should listen to the multi part podcast “Gene and Roger” for the truth. “Gene was a lifelong friend, and our professional competition only strengthened that bond. As a critic, he was passionate and exciting. As a husband and a father, his love knew no bounds.” - Roger Ebert
Not mentioned about Cannonball Run was that it was based on a series of illegal coast to coast races that really took place in the 1970s. They were called the Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash. The founder of these real life Cannonball races was a guy named Brock Yates (writer and editor for car and driver magazine). Brock makes a cameo in the movie as the guy who explains to the drivers the rules of the race in the parking lot (of the portofino inn which actually served as the finishing line of the real races) before the race begins. Brock eventually wrote a book (titled: Cannonball!) about the real races as well as the making of Cannonball Run. It's a good, fun book.
There was basically another version of this in the mid-1970's. It starred Michael Sarrazan and is called The Gumball Rally. Then Burt Reynolds and company dusted of the plot and changed the film's title to Cannonball Run.
Car and Driver was one of the funniest magazines in the world - not one of the funniest *car* magazines, but one of the funniest magazines, period - back when Yates was writing for it.
Geek question: does anyone know who created that immortal animation/slit scan ID for WTTW Chicago - its still gorgeous after all these years - it has a whiff of Robert Abel & Associates...but its hard to say.
That summer, I saw Superman II in a college town with a college audience. The previews shown were for Under The Rainbow and So Fine, another big 1981 flop (wonder why they didn't feature it in this episode) starring Ryan O'Neal. Well, some of the most skillful editors in Hollywood are the ones who make the previews, because these previews made both these movies look hilarious and exciting and the college audience was cheering the previews. Of course, everyone was really up for Superman II, which was great. Wonder if anyone there went to see one of those dogs when they arrived on the strength of the previews.
Yes, I think Sneak Previews was the better show. They were allowed more time to discuss film and they didn't always have to focus on the biggest releases.
"First Monday in October" did have some weaknesses, as they point out, but it was not quite as bad as they argued either. I liked Walter Matthau in this picture; his sarcasm was very good.
I watched the original cut of "Heaven's Gate" (close to 4 hours) and did not find it horrible. It's main problem is as Ebert says - it lacks a strong story. Most people are unfamiliar with the Johnson County Wars of the late 1800s (nowadays they're unfamiliar with the Civil War as well!), which worked against it. It's not a great film, but it's a good film: the cinematography and attention to historical details are fantastic.
Peter Biskind writes in his great book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" that HEAVEN'S GATE became (in)famous because it was the film that ended the Auteur Era of the 1970's, where major directors could pretty much do whatever they wanted (and produced some of the greatest films ever in the process) and producers/film production companies were there to be told by those directors to shut up and sit down. A film from an Auteur-type was eventually going to be such a complete disaster that it would allow the producers/companies to regain control of the filmmaking process in Hollywood. Biskind notes that REDS or 1941 could have been That Film. But the movie that got that tag was HEAVEN'S GATE.
@@patrickshields5251 Same shit. Actually, he would delete bad reviews more than good ones due to bad films fading faster from the memory than good ones.
@@sha11235 Yeah. But only a few positive reviews were deleted so he can put more room in future editions. You know his 3 star review of The Secret of NIMH? Only in the first edition published in 1985.
@@patrickshields5251 He did this in other editions, like Year of the Quiet Sun and Violets Are Blue (4 and 3 stars). Then after the 1995 edition, he got rid of other 3 star reviews, including Cop and a Half.
@@sha11235 I think a couple of 4 star reviews he deleted after the 1996 edition were Working Girl and Bye Bye Brazil. His Restoration and Revival section was no longer used in the 1998 version because he was working on his pet project, The Great Movies.
Nice "Jaws" spoof with Sparky at the start. In addition to the films listed above, the two other films Gene hated seeing in 1981 were "The Incredible Shrinking Woman" and "Honky Tonk Freeway". (SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, January 3, 1982)
I think Honky Tonk Freeway may have snuck into the previous year's Worst Films show. Forgotten now, that was a particularly notorious film in the UK as it was produced by British company EMI Films and was directed by a big-name British director, John Schlesinger. The film was ruinously expensive and lost almost its entire cost, an absolute disaster for what was the last remaining major British movie studio.
@@cactusjackNV Agreed, so much jingoistic right-wing blow-em-up junk put out by these corporate movie product machines to anesthetize the public of the real issues.
I have fond memories of seeing Cannonball Run. Saw it with my then best friend, a fellow fanatic about the movies. We were 12 years old. We talked, read, ate, drank, and slept the movies. And we went to the movies together once a week for a lot of years from the 1970s-1980s. He always chose the movies we would go see. I didnt mind. I loved the movie theatergoing experience in itself. There was no particular reason we went to see Cannonball Run. We tried to see every new movie that came out regardless of plot, genre (he liked horror, I preferred comedy), the reviews, or who starred in it. And Cannonball Run just happened to be one of the new movies that was just released. In spite of of getting really bad reviews, I recall the theater was packed and Cannonball Run was one of the biggest box office hits of that year. Going to the movies with my best friend in the 1970s-1980s is among my most fondest, happiest memories of my entire life.
@@Drew791 Nope. We eventually drifted apart. Haven't seen or heard from him since the late 1980s. Though I know where he is today and what has happened to him (got a civil service job, got married, has a couple of kids, etc) since then.
God...I didn't. Mom made me sit through the whole thing as a 5-year-old in the theater until I got so execrably ill by the maracas scene I had to go to the bathroom and heave. A borefest punctuated by a fever dream of a lousy Carmen Miranda sequence both Siskel and Ebert highlight. Compared to that, "The Empire Strikes Back" was an ambrosia cleanse. My parents had lousy taste in movies.
I actually saw it in the theater in August 1981, I was 9 and found it funny. If I were to watch it today, as a grumpy old man, I wonder if I'd like Chu Chu and the Philly Flash today.
I never understood why part 2 is so generally hated by fans of Halloween ... Both are just as boring, and part 2 just felt like more of the same thing as the first. 3 was really the only interesting one of the franchise... Michael Myers is a snooze fest
17:17 Well, the point was to just cram a lot of well known names into a film. There's nothing much beyond that. I thought it was fun, and so did the audience I was with.
Taste is relative, so it's fair to point out that at least a couple of these dogs ("Cannonball Run" and "Hallowe'en ll") were actually box office hits.
When you do a sequel or remake, you're saying: "Look, folks, we don't have any new ideas." Also they cut the budgets because the concept is considered "pre-sold." There are some exceptions like the "Back to the Future" series; "Road Warrior"; and "Terminator II"; but they're the exceptions.
Gene was pissing against the wind for so many years with his rants about accountants driving the movie industry. He was so right. BTW, there seems to be some revisionism about Heaven's Gate...no way, that movie was awful for the reasons Roger mentioned.
Now it's fairly easy to watch Heaven's Gate in its complete version for free I gave it a try and quit after about an hour. Beautiful-looking but unfocused, rambling and uninvolved, which is pretty much what Ebert said. I would add that the dialogue is just awful.
Under The Rainbow was about all the midgets on Wizard Of Oz being drunk and crazy during filming. Bet Carrie Fisher was already into heavy drug-use. Michael Biehn was creepy in The Fan.
I didn't like "Hardly Working" either,but I disagree with their opinion that Jerry Lewis needed Dean Martin to be funny. He made a lot of great comedies on his own during the 60's.
17:31 it was amusing hearing Ebert criticizing Hollywood for rehashing old films and sequels. He has no idea how bad things are now. Hollywood today is all about remakes, sequels and superhero films. Everything is a pathetic cash grab.
HBO must've really liked 'the dogs' because they played the hell out of most of these all through the 80s. I remember watching Cannonball Run, The Lone Ranger , Under the Rainbow and Zoro the Gay Blade over and over.
@@sdot5389 Ha ha. I'm glad they did. I've got fond memories of those bad movies. I just recently did a painting of the hot chicks in the Lamborghini from Cannonball Run. They're like little snippets of images projected on your brain that won't stop pestering you until you give them your full attention. Like popping a zit or something.
Yes. United Artists basically went out of business. After that, the studios held their directors on a shorter leash. Here's a good treatment of the story: ruclips.net/video/XnG-KZwrCxs/видео.html
For three months they were talking about the furor that had attacked the theatrical version before reconstructing the real original version before releasing to theaters.
I would have replaced "True Confessions" and "Halloween II" with "Rich And Famous", a stinker starring Jacqueline Bisset and Candice Bergen, and the remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice", a movie that shows that Jack Nicholson can do some clunkers.
Halloween II was no Halloween I, but wow, to claim it was a dreadful film and one of the worst of the year is totally off. It was/is mildly above average, but far from a bad film.
"I think Halloween II is an abomination and a horrible movie. I was really disappointed in it. The director has gone on and done some other films and I think his career is launched now. But I don’t think he had a feel for the material. I think that’s the problem, he didn’t have a feeling for what was going on." -John Carpenter
@Jay McDanieL On your list of horror films, don't forget "Halloween 4," with Danielle Harris giving the best performance of a young actress I've ever seen. I think everyone was pleasantly surprised by that sequel.
I liked the roller-skating scene (was an extra on a Jeff Bridges movie a few years ago and wish I had had the nerve to ask him about it) but the rest was pretty tedious.
If the producers of Halloween had gone immediately to the Season of the Witch story for the first sequel, then the series would have been better off with the intended anthology format like Cloverfield.
Exactly. Friday the 13th II falls into the generic slasher film category that they mentioned at the top of the show. They loved the first Halloween so much that they were heavily disappointed with its sequel. So that's why it was mentioned.
Regarding "Hardly Working," I still find the individual bits absolutely hilarious, which is the key to enjoying any Jerry Lewis film. The clip they show in this episode's intro, with Jerry as the bartender at the strip club, still cracks me up. They're so unrestrained. I think the "popular in France" observation has its roots in French sensibilities. French comedies, like Tati's masterpeices, reflect this perfectly and I find them hilarious too. And I sure miss the 80's and Siskel and Ebert.
Disappointing though it may be, I kind of like HALLOWEEN II. Maybe it's not scary but The Shape/Michael Myers is alot of fun - put on a good show. Donald Pleasence is quite good as well. HALLOWEN II is infinitely superior than THE FAN. Glad Siskel & Ebert included THE FAN on their list. 11:30 That movie is absolute garbage. According to Wikipedia, James Garner, one of the actors who starred in that film, thought it was one of his worst films. They forgot to include another piece of crap that came out in 1981; THE FINAL CONFLICT one of the worst movies ever made.
"If we can find something that runs all throughout these pictures, I think he word 'ego applies." Gene actually predicted Nostalgia Critic's review of The Wall.
notgrillo collector/ gamer yeah the 🦨 skunks name was Aroma the educational 🦨 skunk with our stinker of the week. 1st was the dog 🐶 than later the 🦨 skunk.
I've seen every movie that they chose as their "Dogs of 1981" and agree with most of their choices, except for 1. Which is "Cannonball Run". That was actually a pretty fun movie to watch, especially for a kid in the early 80's. I thought their review of "Cannonball Run" was purely from the perspective of serious minded movie critics, of serious and important films only, and fun popcorn movies are to be despised and frowned upon. They didn't review every fun popcorn movie that way, but occasionally they were way too hard on a few good fun movies.
Boy, if they hated all the remakes and sequels in ‘81, then if they were alive today they’d never stop throwing up.
Though to be fair a lot of them would still suck even for their time regardless
Or maybe it shows that there are ALWAYS bad movies, and that people should be less fixated on nostalgia.
@@Laissez-faire402 Yes. The amount of people blinded by nostalgia is unbelievable.
1981 wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking. The movies in 1981 that were bad are STILL bad. Difference is audiences could discern the difference between crap and quality. And for the most part the better films rose to the top. 40+ years later the bar has been lowered so far to the point, Hollywood doesn't even try anymore. It's not nostalgia, it's an objective 1 to 1 comparison of the overall quality of films that used to be released.
@@thetimewaveyou know that these two have the ability to be wrong about something, right? Not everything they dislike was complete shit, and I’m sure some of your favorite movies actually fall into that category.
Everybody else loves it when Siskel and Ebert fight, but I prefer it when they agree.
Especially if they both have something snarky to say about a movie they both hate a movie.
These Dogs of the Year episodes were always the best. Gene and Roger making each other laugh in agreement of how terrible something is shows their humanity and is quite touching.
Thank you so much, Eric. More than just a tv show, each episode is a masterclass in film review for younger generations that won't be lucky to grow with Gene and Roger. I miss them horribly, but thanks to you, they are back. More, please! 😊😊😊
Roger Ebert's review essays are even more of a "masterclass" for film review. His entire history of reviews are published in several books. They are excellent.
Some of Siskel and Ebert’s programs would actually make for good curriculum for classes relating to media as literature or film criticism or film history.
The Cannonball Run is a classic. It is so much fun and I love it.
That was a great film
Carrie Fisher and Chevy Chase admitted that Under the Rainbow was "one of the worst movies we ever done."
Once again, thank you so much. Such a big fan of these guys.
Under the Rainbow screened for exhibitors on the same morning as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Rainbow was supposed to be the big hit, while Raiders didn't quite have any buzz just yet. I skipped Rainbow, which was well-attended by execs, and saw Raiders with the smaller group. Those of us in Raiders knew it was going to be a huge hit. I spoke to Rainbow attendees, however, who hated the film and knew it would be a box office dud. Needless to say, we booked Raiders which played well all summer long.
Neat story but I sorta doubt that Raiders lacked "buzz" considering that Spielberg already helmed Jaws and Close Encounters. In fact, it opened at #1 with pretty healthy earnings.
@@WheresPoochie Were you there at the screenings? Did you work in the industry? Have you studied the data? I appreciate that it might not seem so in retrospect, but this information is accurate. In fact, Raiders' opening was not, actually, a hot opening. Sure, it grossed about $8 million its first week. Its main competition was Mel Brooks' History of the World Part One, which, interestingly, had much higher per capita attendance than Raiders, grossing nearly $5 million on fewer than HALF the screens (under 500) Raiders was on (more than a thousand). One week later, Cannonball Run opened in about 500 more screens than Raiders and grossed more than $12 million while Superman II grossed another $14 million at the same time. A week later, still, Bill Murray's R-rated comedy Stripes and James Bonds' For Your Eyes Only would both open to grosses almost the equal Raiders' opening. (The flop of summer '81 was Disney's PG-rated Dragonslayer.) Raiders did not have a huge opening market campaign. In fact, Disney spent more on Dragonslayer. Word of mouth was what quickly brought people out, often for repeat viewings. The magic of Raiders was that it simply played all summer. Under the Rainbow, however, was genuinely thought to be the hot picture for the summer... until viewings. Chevy Chase was hot property (and was still two more summers away from his first Vacation hit.) And Carrie Fisher had just come off of her second Star Wars film. But word had gotten so bad by its July release that it barely appeared on 400 screens and opened to about $2 million, one of the lowest of the summer. It was a huge misfire in an industry that often misfires. Again, I appreciate that Raiders just seems like it was this giant massive juggernaut from the beginning, but it just wasn't.
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” was a lot of fun to watch, and both Spielberg and Lucas clearly enjoyed making the film. But, when producers have little to no faith in their own film, that is a bad sign.
@@WheresPoochie He did, but more recently he'd just spit the bit on 1941, the biggest budget he'd gotten to work with to date. So it's not like Spielberg could do no wrong. Harrison Ford had some buzz by then, but wasn't considered an A list star who could carry a blockbuster. It was uncertain at the time what kind of appetite audiences had for pulpy treasure hunter epics that intersect with Nazi occultism.
I have no insider knowledge of the movies of that time, but I could see how not everyone expected a smash hit.
@@WheresPoochie I think, too, that Michael is pointing out that he was seeing it with other exhibitors long before the studio publicity machine had cranked up, before critics had the chance to review it, etc. I remember when Raiders came out, and reviewers were talking it up, but I had barely even heard of it before it hit theaters. E.T. was the same way, in fact. Yes, it was marketed as being by the director of "Jaws" but in 1981 the average person didn't pay attention to directors' names the way they do now. This was before not only the internet and social media, but also before mainstream movie magazines like Movieline Magazine and Premiere, or entertainment magazines like Entertainment Weekly, and around the same time that Entertainment Tonight was on the air. The reason Raiders hit big off the bat was because it was unanimously talked up by critics in its opening weekend and because people saw it, walked out, told all of their friends that it's a perfect movie, and then walked back into the theater to see it again.
"Maybe the subtitles are funnier in French". I love these guys!
Cannonball Run stands the test of time. And it had fantastic credit bloopers!
Anything with Adrienne Barbeau is worth watching.
Including that movie on here is an insult. It's all-American fun.
The gag reel was funnier than the movie itself.
Indeed it really will. One of the few huge all star cast movies that actually worked. Everyone from Roger Moore to Terry Bradshaw all had a ball and contributed greatly to the fun nature it showed, they weren't faking a bit of it. That's what that genre of film lacks a lot of the time. The actors in a random all star big cast movie are usually miserable, there are way too many characters, and the plot's a mess. Cannonball manages to juggle the characters well and doesn't lose track of the main plot goal which is impressive. It'll always be a fun ride. Such a shame part 2 got lost sadly.
The world would be a better place if we had more films like The Cannonball Run. I put it on all the time just to be in a happy mood.
I miss so many of the actors in that film.
"I wear a shoulder holster" made me chuckle, I admit.
Hilarious intro with the dog.
Puppy!
Yeah, cute takeoff on Jaws. But he should've also walked by a section that said Masterpieces.
I liked that intro, too!
Thank you, Eric. These episodes of the great Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert are a fantastic trip down memory lane. I used to love watching them when they were on PBS before they moved to the ABC network. I still watched them on ABC, but these earlier episodes were even better with no commercials.
The quality of these full episodes is terrific. I love watching these and thank you again for posting them. I really miss both Gene and Roger. They were a big part of my life growing up and as I got older.
Technically, they did not move to ABC. In 1982, after a dispute with WTTW-TV (which produced the show for PBS), they moved to Tribune Entertainment, where they created "At The Movies" (and their thumb-rating system). In 1986, they moved to Buena Vista Television (Disney, if you will) where they created a third, self-titled program, which by far was the longest running they've ever helmed. Both shows were syndicated affairs, so they appeared not only on ABC stations, but also stations affiliated with CBS, NBC, Fox, the WB and UPN (the last two of these networks launched in 1995) along with a smattering of local independents looking to spice up their programming lineups. In some areas, the same station carried both programs upon their respective debuts.
As a side note, after Disney bought ABC in 1996, Siskel & Ebert began taping their show out of ABC O&O WLS-TV.
Well, you obviously have more knowledge of the show than me. I stand corrected.
@@jessecoffey4737 You are correct about their moving from PBS to commercial syndication. PBS actually wanted to move them, but they did it on better terms. In NYC, At the Movies aired on WPIX TV and when they went to Disney in 1986, it aired on various stations during its run. By the way, from what I know, they taped in the CBS studio until 2001, then moved over to the ABC studio. Read this in Richard Roeper's book.
@Trzn Correct, cause when they started working for Disney, they did the show at CBS O&O WBBM-TV, and probley got space their because Siskel was once a contributor to WBBM-TV. When Disney bought out ABC then the show was moved crosstown to WLS-TV ABC7. Siskel must have pulled a few strings along the way to keep the spats with Roger Ebert going.
@@jessecoffey4737 I thought the Romans invented the thumb-ratings system. Or the Fonz.
I like how in this one, they were both in agreement 100% of the way through, to the point where they started complimenting each others' points. Shows that bad movies can really bring people together.
Good point.
Was Halloween II really bad though.
@@davidgmorris181340it was disappointing because it was basically a copy of the first movie.
I mean in general, they always agreed on what’s really good and what’s really bad. It was the stuff in the middle that they had the most professional disagreements on.
@@thekingofmovies193 It also takes place over the same night, so why would it be that different? Halloween II is fine and they got the slasher genre completely and totally wrong (women in peril being a lazy take especially), but it’s fun to watch them miss the mark.
When the Johnny Depp version of "Lone Ranger" bombed,I immediately remembered the 1981 version,and how it got bad publicity before it was even released.
At the time,Clayton Moore,who played the Ranger on TV during the 50's,was still making public appearances dressed as the character,and these were very popular. However,the people behind the not-yet-released '81 movie took him to court for doing this,saying they owned the character now. A compromise was eventually reached....Moore would trade in his Ranger mask for a visor-like pair of sunglasses...but public opinion turned against the studio,seeing them as a faceless greedy company who sought to prevent an aging actor from making his fans happy.
If I remember correctly the actor that played the Lone Ranger was so bad that another actor dubbed his dialogue....
John Smith yup. Played by a stupid idiot by the name of Klinton Spilsbury. He had most of his dialogue done by James Keach because he couldn’t memorize simple little lines. He was also drunk and combative during the filming. He easily won(hands down) for worst actor at the Golden Raspberry Award. Well earned and well deserved.
I saw the '81 Ranger at an industry screening a couple months before its release. Exec types frequently appeared unimpressed at screenings in those days; no one wanted to appear too enthusiastic in case the film was a box office dud! But the execs HATED the '81 Ranger. The film was terrible, the studio wanted a huge guarantee from exhibitors, and nobody could see any mass appeal for a western in 1981. Exhibitors ended up staying away from the film as much as audiences. It ended up being unpleasant for everyone. Did Hollywood learn anything? Ask Johnny Depp.
the thing is, the film gets a lot right, but the main actor was gay, as they later found out and dubbed his voice with James Keach. The film does have a pacing problem,
That 81 Lone Ranger also bombed at the box office. An idiot by the name of Klinton Spillsbury was embarrassing himself trying to play the mask avenger. James Keach came on and did most of his dialogue. He couldn’t even memorize simple little lines. Spillsbury won the RAZZIE award for worst worst actor. A well deserved win. His career went nowhere soon afterwards.
"Help me!"
LOL
I like how they discussed the role of the ego in Hollywood (of stars and directors) and the manipulation of those egos by other elements (producers, agents) to order to cash in.
Absolutely. That’s a more dangerous part of human nature that also leads to being so sure of oneself in one way or another.
@@curleed85 I agree.
That scene from “The Legend Of the Lone Ranger” where they say “Try this” and “The Silver Bullet” laughingly made me think they were talking about Coors Light. Ha ha ha!!!
I need a beer. 🍻
My dad took me to see this film. I never forgave him for it. The trailer for Raiders of the Lost Ark was on before the movie, and it was better than the whole movie.
Patrick Langan especially since James Keach did most of Klinton Spilsbury’s dialogue. Terrible performance.
Great to see these episodes again..thx!
That WTTW Chicago logo / introduction is PERFECTION 🥰 (as are the 80s opening credits)
I saw "Hardly Working" in the theater and I was blown away by how bad it was. Jerry, of course, was in the midst of an awful Percocet addiction in his private life but even that couldn't explain the ineptitude that was on screen. In one scene while playing a waiter, his ring gets caught in the shawl of a sitting diner and he immediately devolves into a lisping moron saying over and over again...more than a dozen times... "My ring is caught in your meschhhhh"...I mean, who looked at that in the editing room and thought anything other than "This is AWFUL!!!!!!"????
What's funny is it was on the shelf for two years. Why didn't they keep it on there??????
I'll pay you five bucks to say that out loud standing in the middle of the Champs-Elysses in Gay Paris
@@danorthsidemang3834 You know why the French think he's funny? Because he makes us look like dopes.
@@sha11235 Today, a film with bad mojo can avoid the costs and risks of a theatrical release and simply go straight to home video. Back in those days, there were not huge opportunities for a film after it had been in the theatres beyond TV and re-releases. Hardly Working was a total embarrassment for the studio and Lewis, and I was embarrassed to sell tickets (well, a few) for it. Aside from Jerry's personal problems, it was a time of change in entertainment. Lewis' style of entertainment was on its way out, already on life-support with its legends dying out and making last gasp appearances on such shows as The Love Boat. Jerry's aging schtick in Hardly Working was barely any different than what the likes of Sid Caesar were doing on The Love Boat. The movie just made it look so much worse.
Lewis had a lot of clout in Hollywood. I imagine nobody had the nerve to tell him his movie was garbage.
I watched a few of these now(Thanks so much for uploading them!).And each time it starts for the first 3 seconds I think I have the wrong video.And that it's the beginning of the Batman Animated Series from the early 90's..
I really miss these guys.
So do I.
Is that Michael Biehn in 'The Fan'? If so, he looks really young.
Numinous20111 yes.
It was his first movie.
My favorite moment in Halloween 2 is when dr, loomis is ranting about having killed michael at the end of the first movie after shooting him and he says "I shot him, I shot him six times, I shot him in the eyes,in the heart and the head".
Actually you shot him...nine times...with a six shot revolver...that you didn't relaod.
I could never figure out why he gave his gun to Laurie who by some miracle of luck shot him in the eyes,,,,,,the book described him as being reborn each time he died.....
15:50 Actually, the cars were a big part of what was wrong with the film. One of them crashed a paralyzed a young stunt woman, Heidi von Beltz, for the rest of her life. A big lawsuit resulted. A horrible tragedy.
😢
Can’t replace these two guys. So sad 😞 they’re no longer with us. RIP to Gene Siskel deceased 2/20/1999 at age 53 and Roger Ebert deceased 4/4/2013/ at age 70. They’re probably up in heaven reviewing movies together as we speak.
They are watching classics together all the time.
Clearly you dont know the real life story. They hated each other and wished cancer on each other, and then they both died of cancer. They are on seperate clouds.
@@RageMojo really? Then y was Gene Siskel best man at Roger’s wedding? Tell me that didn’t mean anything.
@@RageMojoWay off. They had a very professional relationship. They were different people but were friendly in the end. Their competitiveness drove them in the early days, but they warmed to each other over time. You should listen to the multi part podcast “Gene and Roger” for the truth.
“Gene was a lifelong friend, and our professional competition only strengthened that bond. As a critic, he was passionate and exciting. As a husband and a father, his love knew no bounds.” - Roger Ebert
Interesting how they really put the financing aspect under the microscope. Something that became even more of a talking point in future years.
11:10 I think that's enough maracas for a few months
1:25
Hilarious and adorable.
I remember watching this at home and my parents laughing at the opening scene with the dog.
That bit cracked me up, too.
Not mentioned about Cannonball Run was that it was based on a series of illegal coast to coast races that really took place in the 1970s. They were called the Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash.
The founder of these real life Cannonball races was a guy named Brock Yates (writer and editor for car and driver magazine). Brock makes a cameo in the movie as the guy who explains to the drivers the rules of the race in the parking lot (of the portofino inn which actually served as the finishing line of the real races) before the race begins.
Brock eventually wrote a book (titled: Cannonball!) about the real races as well as the making of Cannonball Run. It's a good, fun book.
There was basically another version of this in the mid-1970's. It starred Michael Sarrazan and is called The Gumball Rally. Then Burt Reynolds and company dusted of the plot and changed the film's title to Cannonball Run.
Gumball Rally was such a fun movie!
Car and Driver was one of the funniest magazines in the world - not one of the funniest *car* magazines, but one of the funniest magazines, period - back when Yates was writing for it.
Yates wrote the screenplay, too.
Thanks for the info.
18:30 Roger with his best impersonation of being on MST3k. xD
Geek question: does anyone know who created that immortal animation/slit scan ID for WTTW Chicago - its still gorgeous after all these years - it has a whiff of Robert Abel & Associates...but its hard to say.
these guys should get a podcast of sumthin
Fair, however the wardrobe in "Zorro, the gay blade" was genuinely fabulous.
That summer, I saw Superman II in a college town with a college audience. The previews shown were for Under The Rainbow and So Fine, another big 1981 flop (wonder why they didn't feature it in this episode) starring Ryan O'Neal. Well, some of the most skillful editors in Hollywood are the ones who make the previews, because these previews made both these movies look hilarious and exciting and the college audience was cheering the previews. Of course, everyone was really up for Superman II, which was great. Wonder if anyone there went to see one of those dogs when they arrived on the strength of the previews.
PBS Sneak Previews > syndicated At the Movies... especially the theme music!
Dare I say Sneak Previews was also somewhat educational, at times.
Yes, I think Sneak Previews was the better show. They were allowed more time to discuss film and they didn't always have to focus on the biggest releases.
"First Monday in October" did have some weaknesses, as they point out, but it was not quite as bad as they argued either. I liked Walter Matthau in this picture; his sarcasm was very good.
I watched the original cut of "Heaven's Gate" (close to 4 hours) and did not find it horrible. It's main problem is as Ebert says - it lacks a strong story. Most people are unfamiliar with the Johnson County Wars of the late 1800s (nowadays they're unfamiliar with the Civil War as well!), which worked against it. It's not a great film, but it's a good film: the cinematography and attention to historical details are fantastic.
It just put me to sleep with it's length.
It’s not even close to historically accurate
I have watched the directors cut version of that film and i think it was actually a good movie.
I just remember the ending was was dusty and incomphrensible..couldn`t tell was happening,,
Peter Biskind writes in his great book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" that HEAVEN'S GATE became (in)famous because it was the film that ended the Auteur Era of the 1970's, where major directors could pretty much do whatever they wanted (and produced some of the greatest films ever in the process) and producers/film production companies were there to be told by those directors to shut up and sit down. A film from an Auteur-type was eventually going to be such a complete disaster that it would allow the producers/companies to regain control of the filmmaking process in Hollywood. Biskind notes that REDS or 1941 could have been That Film. But the movie that got that tag was HEAVEN'S GATE.
I remember some of these films from Roger's reviews in his yearbook.
You mean his Movie Home Companion? It's a good thing he deleted these reviews from later editions so his readers won't rent them on video.
@@patrickshields5251 Same shit. Actually, he would delete bad reviews more than good ones due to bad films fading faster from the memory than good ones.
@@sha11235 Yeah. But only a few positive reviews were deleted so he can put more room in future editions. You know his 3 star review of The Secret of NIMH? Only in the first edition published in 1985.
@@patrickshields5251 He did this in other editions, like Year of the Quiet Sun and Violets Are Blue (4 and 3 stars). Then after the 1995 edition, he got rid of other 3 star reviews, including Cop and a Half.
@@sha11235 I think a couple of 4 star reviews he deleted after the 1996 edition were Working Girl and Bye Bye Brazil. His Restoration and Revival section was no longer used in the 1998 version because he was working on his pet project, The Great Movies.
Nice "Jaws" spoof with Sparky at the start. In addition to the films listed above, the two other films Gene hated seeing in 1981 were "The Incredible Shrinking Woman" and "Honky Tonk Freeway". (SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, January 3, 1982)
Siskel and Ebert really hated the 80s do they? Who do you think hated that decade the most when it comes to movies?
I think Honky Tonk Freeway may have snuck into the previous year's Worst Films show. Forgotten now, that was a particularly notorious film in the UK as it was produced by British company EMI Films and was directed by a big-name British director, John Schlesinger. The film was ruinously expensive and lost almost its entire cost, an absolute disaster for what was the last remaining major British movie studio.
@@ianfryer8386 S&E's 1980 worst film list only had seven films; _Honky Tonk Freeway_ was nowhere on it.
@@jessecoffey4737 Darn. They certainly did it at some point - I watched their review some time over the last week.
@@ianfryer8386 Where can it be found?
It was amusing to listen to Siskel and Ebert bemoaning the dearth of lifeless remakes and cynical, cash grabbing sequels. Stay the course Hollywood.
Jay Sherman would continue the gag in 1994, hehe.
@@ShamrockParticle “It stinks!”
@@cactusjackNV Agreed, so much jingoistic right-wing blow-em-up junk put out by these corporate movie product machines to anesthetize the public of the real issues.
Disney’s mantra
"Dearth" means there isn't enough of something, a scarcity. That's the opposite of what they're saying about remakes and sequels.
I have fond memories of seeing Cannonball Run.
Saw it with my then best friend, a fellow fanatic about the movies. We were 12 years old. We talked, read, ate, drank, and slept the movies. And we went to the movies together once a week for a lot of years from the 1970s-1980s. He always chose the movies we would go see. I didnt mind. I loved the movie theatergoing experience in itself.
There was no particular reason we went to see Cannonball Run. We tried to see every new movie that came out regardless of plot, genre (he liked horror, I preferred comedy), the reviews, or who starred in it. And Cannonball Run just happened to be one of the new movies that was just released.
In spite of of getting really bad reviews, I recall the theater was packed and Cannonball Run was one of the biggest box office hits of that year.
Going to the movies with my best friend in the 1970s-1980s is among my most fondest, happiest memories of my entire life.
Are you still friends with your movie friend?
@@Drew791
Nope. We eventually drifted apart. Haven't seen or heard from him since the late 1980s. Though I know where he is today and what has happened to him (got a civil service job, got married, has a couple of kids, etc) since then.
Yes, you liked it with the mind of a 12 year old…kind of says it all
The critics were right. I tried watching Heaven’s Gate and I turned it off after 20 minutes. It was unbearable.
20 minutes? Weak
I couldn't finish it in one sitting.
Clay3613 that pole climbing scene @ the university alone made me want to shut it off as well.
HEAVEN'S GATE isn't so bad if you see it in a foreign language without subtitles!
@@Blaqjaqshellaq Very funny.
I completely forgot about CHU CHU AND THE PHILLY FLASH.
God...I didn't. Mom made me sit through the whole thing as a 5-year-old in the theater until I got so execrably ill by the maracas scene I had to go to the bathroom and heave. A borefest punctuated by a fever dream of a lousy Carmen Miranda sequence both Siskel and Ebert highlight. Compared to that, "The Empire Strikes Back" was an ambrosia cleanse. My parents had lousy taste in movies.
I actually saw it in the theater in August 1981, I was 9 and found it funny. If I were to watch it today, as a grumpy old man, I wonder if I'd like Chu Chu and the Philly Flash today.
"I can tell you/My love for you will still be strong/After the Dogs of 1981 are gone"
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AUDIO?
Sparky was so cute. Wish they had kept the dog of the week (or the skunk) in the later seasons.
Halloween II is one of the (very few) greatest horror sequels ever made
I never understood why part 2 is so generally hated by fans of Halloween ... Both are just as boring, and part 2 just felt like more of the same thing as the first. 3 was really the only interesting one of the franchise... Michael Myers is a snooze fest
I like part 2 better than the first movie.
I liked "Cannonball Run."
17:17 Well, the point was to just cram a lot of well known names into a film. There's nothing much beyond that. I thought it was fun, and so did the audience I was with.
Taste is relative, so it's fair to point out that at least a couple of these dogs ("Cannonball Run" and "Hallowe'en ll") were actually box office hits.
They were still terrible movies. If a few thousand people jumped off a bridge, would you do it as well?
Remakes and sequels some things never change
When you do a sequel or remake, you're saying: "Look, folks, we don't have any new ideas." Also they cut the budgets because the concept is considered "pre-sold."
There are some exceptions like the "Back to the Future" series; "Road Warrior"; and "Terminator II"; but they're the exceptions.
Gene brings hellfire to the cast and director of Cannonball Run.
10:20
🙊
That gag actually made me laugh 😆
This may have already been mentioned, but at the 1:36 mark, the dog chases a mouse, or rat. This film vault needs a deep cleaning!!!!
Especially those bad films. Throw them into the garbage.
Burt Reynolds thought if he and his buddies were having fun making the movie it must be good. WRONG!
Gene was pissing against the wind for so many years with his rants about accountants driving the movie industry. He was so right. BTW, there seems to be some revisionism about Heaven's Gate...no way, that movie was awful for the reasons Roger mentioned.
Now it's fairly easy to watch Heaven's Gate in its complete version for free I gave it a try and quit after about an hour. Beautiful-looking but unfocused, rambling and uninvolved, which is pretty much what Ebert said. I would add that the dialogue is just awful.
@@ianfryer8386most of Michael Cihminos work is unfocused
Cannonball Run was great. I cannot disagree more. Hysterical.
Under The Rainbow was about all the midgets on Wizard Of Oz being drunk and crazy during filming. Bet Carrie Fisher was already into heavy drug-use. Michael Biehn was creepy in The Fan.
Yeah, like the Munchkin Mayor did that. Just garbage.
I didn't like "Hardly Working" either,but I disagree with their opinion that Jerry Lewis needed Dean Martin to be funny. He made a lot of great comedies on his own during the 60's.
I’m surprised they didn’t point out Jill Clayburgh was only 37. A little young to be a Supreme Court justice?
Except in Trump World
Peter Ustinov as Charlie Chan? Who the fuck came up with that idea?
Sydney Toler was the original CC. Another non-Asian in yellow face.
@@joelbest2424 Wow! Smh
17:31 it was amusing hearing Ebert criticizing Hollywood for rehashing old films and sequels. He has no idea how bad things are now. Hollywood today is all about remakes, sequels and superhero films. Everything is a pathetic cash grab.
OMG!!!
Tonto, in The Legend of The Lone Ranger, is Deputy Hawk (Michael Horse), from Twin Peaks!
Is it about the bunnies?
No. It’s not about the bunnies.
yee-ouch. _Hardly Working_ looks rough.
Halloween II was a good movie.
Well at least it wasn't Halloween III; no Michael Myers, no Jamie Lee Curtis, no point in watching.
Yes it was, better than the first one.
Mmm.... Adrienne Barbeau!
Jerry Lewis was apparently ahead of his time, "playing the schnook and the romantic lead", paving the way for Adam Sandler.
Maybe "The Day the Clown Cried" was also ahead of its time. ;)
@@Studeb One day maybe we'll find out.
Lewis wrote a filmmaking book that Scorsese studied like crazy as a film student. No kidding.
@@Studeb From what I know, that movie will never see the light of day.
Jerry Lewis invented Video Assist! Something every director uses to this day.
how did Tonto smelt and manufacture silver bullets, i wonder?
I liked cannonball run as a kid when it came out, maybe I should watch it as an adult
I liked Dukes of Hazard when I was a kid…..terrible as an adult.
I thought the first two Halloween movies were good.
They were, these guys hated most all horror movies.
I liked Buddy, Buddy.
Same here
23:40 Well what did you expect to see in 1890's Wyoming? Ice pellets?
HBO must've really liked 'the dogs' because they played the hell out of most of these all through the 80s. I remember watching Cannonball Run, The Lone Ranger , Under the Rainbow and Zoro the Gay Blade over and over.
It’s because they got them for cheap
@@sdot5389 Ha ha. I'm glad they did. I've got fond memories of those bad movies. I just recently did a painting of the hot chicks in the Lamborghini from Cannonball Run. They're like little snippets of images projected on your brain that won't stop pestering you until you give them your full attention. Like popping a zit or something.
Didn’t Heavens Gate bankrupt or almost bankrupt the studio?
Yes. United Artists basically went out of business. After that, the studios held their directors on a shorter leash.
Here's a good treatment of the story: ruclips.net/video/XnG-KZwrCxs/видео.html
@@williamwingo4740 It goes beyond that, it destroyed the New Hollywood movement.
Nope! That's a myth. Just like Unicorns...
@@williamwingo4740 I watched this documentary a couple of months ago, and it was very interesting. Thank you for providing the link.
It killed off United Artists' existence and led to the foundation of MGM/UA.
I wonder if the re-release of Heavens Gate (Criterion?) has taken out the subtitles? Definitely unnecessary!
For three months they were talking about the furor that had attacked the theatrical version before reconstructing the real original version before releasing to theaters.
" Help me" the subtitle of the year...lmbo.
Hearing gene pontificate about ego at the end got a laugh out of me
I would have replaced "True Confessions" and "Halloween II" with "Rich And Famous", a stinker starring Jacqueline Bisset and Candice Bergen, and the remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice", a movie that shows that Jack Nicholson can do some clunkers.
Rich & Famous is also a remake: www.imdb.com/title/tt0036230/
I'm glad it's not just me that hated the dreary The Postmen Always Rings Twice remake. I recall that it had a pretty good critical reputation
@@ianfryer8386 I agree. That movie was trash.
Halloween II was no Halloween I, but wow, to claim it was a dreadful film and one of the worst of the year is totally off. It was/is mildly above average, but far from a bad film.
"I think Halloween II is an abomination and a horrible movie. I was really disappointed in it. The director has gone on and done some other films and I think his career is launched now. But I don’t think he had a feel for the material. I think that’s the problem, he didn’t have a feeling for what was going on." -John Carpenter
I did the Cannonball run “you know too much thing” to my Mother. Suffice to say she didn’t get it.
No way "Halloween 2" belongs on this list. And if Ebert hated it so much, why did he give it 2 out of 4 stars?
@Jay McDanieL On your list of horror films, don't forget "Halloween 4," with Danielle Harris giving the best performance of a young actress I've ever seen.
I think everyone was pleasantly surprised by that sequel.
@@citygirl5705 Halloween 4 suffers from no Dean Cundey.
It's a little weird. But he felt that it sucked. Stars are relative anyway.
@Trzn This.
amanda davis Ebert always gives extra stars for technical reasons. In his written review he calls Halloween 2 polished & good looking.
"Heavens Gate, one of the worst films..."
*shows spectacular clip*
I agree about the subtitles though.
I liked the roller-skating scene (was an extra on a Jeff Bridges movie a few years ago and wish I had had the nerve to ask him about it) but the rest was pretty tedious.
@@steveconn Jeff Bridges is one of the few defenders of the film.
Not a bad Cult Though
Samuel Stephens only a spectacular clip if you love dust
If you read Roger's review, he talks about how after the NY opening run the critics ran gagging from the theater and they tried editing it.
No mention of Honky Tonk Freeway???
Gene named it as one of the ten worst of 1981 in his year end article. (source: Chicago Tribune, January 3, 1982)
@@jessecoffey4737 I have to disagree with him; I like it! :-)
If the producers of Halloween had gone immediately to the Season of the Witch story for the first sequel, then the series would have been better off with the intended anthology format like Cloverfield.
I loved the Cannonball Run, and I don't care who knows it!
Halloween 2 but not firday 2? Alice dies in the first 15 miutes and so does the movie...
I think they thought Halloween was a bigger target. They liked the first one, but not the second one.
Exactly. Friday the 13th II falls into the generic slasher film category that they mentioned at the top of the show. They loved the first Halloween so much that they were heavily disappointed with its sequel. So that's why it was mentioned.
I always wondered how Jason knew where she lived 😂.
"Zorro, the Gay Blade" a dog? C'mon man! How can you not like the "Don Luis Obispo, from Bakersfield!" joke?
Cannonball Run was supposed to be stupid fun. Not everyone goes to the movies to learn a lesson.
Regarding "Hardly Working," I still find the individual bits absolutely hilarious, which is the key to enjoying any Jerry Lewis film. The clip they show in this episode's intro, with Jerry as the bartender at the strip club, still cracks me up. They're so unrestrained. I think the "popular in France" observation has its roots in French sensibilities. French comedies, like Tati's masterpeices, reflect this perfectly and I find them hilarious too. And I sure miss the 80's and Siskel and Ebert.
Taped at the time when $40 million was big budget.
I didn't know 'dogs of the week' had its own intro .. funny
Omg! I love the Cannonball Run!
Disappointing though it may be, I kind of like HALLOWEEN II. Maybe it's not scary but The Shape/Michael Myers is alot of fun - put on a good show. Donald Pleasence is quite good as well. HALLOWEN II is infinitely superior than THE FAN. Glad Siskel & Ebert included THE FAN on their list. 11:30 That movie is absolute garbage. According to Wikipedia, James Garner, one of the actors who starred in that film, thought it was one of his worst films.
They forgot to include another piece of crap that came out in 1981; THE FINAL CONFLICT one of the worst movies ever made.
"If we can find something that runs all throughout these pictures, I think he word 'ego applies." Gene actually predicted Nostalgia Critic's review of The Wall.
i wish they'd show the cute skunk, the little stinker!!
The dog was Sneak Previews..the Skunk was when the show became syndicated later..and then they sadly eliminated the segment
notgrillo collector/ gamer yeah the 🦨 skunks name was Aroma the educational 🦨 skunk with our stinker of the week. 1st was the dog 🐶 than later the 🦨 skunk.
I've seen every movie that they chose as their "Dogs of 1981" and agree with most of their choices, except for 1. Which is "Cannonball Run". That was actually a pretty fun movie to watch, especially for a kid in the early 80's. I thought their review of "Cannonball Run" was purely from the perspective of serious minded movie critics, of serious and important films only, and fun popcorn movies are to be despised and frowned upon. They didn't review every fun popcorn movie that way, but occasionally they were way too hard on a few good fun movies.
I think they were too hard on the Matthau/Clayburgh scene. I mean, it wasn't THAT bad. @4:09